IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i3p1025-d727008.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimal Assessment of Nutritional Status in Older Subjects with the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease—A Comparison of Three Screening Tools Used in the GLIM Diagnostic Algorithm

Author

Listed:
  • Aleksandra Kaluźniak-Szymanowska

    (Department of Palliative Medicine, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 61-245 Poznan, Poland)

  • Roma Krzymińska-Siemaszko

    (Department of Palliative Medicine, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 61-245 Poznan, Poland)

  • Katarzyna Wieczorowska-Tobis

    (Department of Palliative Medicine, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 61-245 Poznan, Poland)

  • Ewa Deskur-Śmielecka

    (Department of Palliative Medicine, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, 61-245 Poznan, Poland)

Abstract

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a recognized risk factor for malnutrition. The European Respiratory Society (ERS) statement included nutritional status assessment and dietary intervention as essential components of comprehensive management in subjects with COPD. According to the GLIM algorithm, the first step in diagnosing malnutrition is risk screening with a validated tool. Our study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of three screening tools (MNA-SF, MUST, and NRS-2002) used in the GLIM algorithm in older patients with COPD. Additionally, we evaluated the agreement between these tools in the diagnostics of malnutrition. We performed a cross-sectional study of 124 patients aged at least 60 years with COPD diagnosed, based on the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD). We assessed the participants’ nutritional status with the three examined screening questionnaires (MNA-SF, MUST, and NRS-2002). Regardless of their results, we performed full malnutrition diagnostics following the GLIM algorithm in all subjects. The proportion of malnourished participants varied from 18.5% for the MUST questionnaire to 27.4% for the MNA-SF and 57.3% for the NRS-2002 score. Based on the GLIM criteria, malnutrition was diagnosed in 48 subjects (38.7%). All assessed questionnaires had an unsatisfactory sensitivity against the GLIM criteria for malnutrition: it was fair (58.3%) for the MNA-SF tool and poor for the MUST and NRS-2002 questionnaires (47.9% for both questionnaires). Considering the negative health consequences of malnutrition, a full diagnostic including GLIM etiologic and phenotypic criteria should be recommended in all elderly patients with COPD, regardless of the screening results.

Suggested Citation

  • Aleksandra Kaluźniak-Szymanowska & Roma Krzymińska-Siemaszko & Katarzyna Wieczorowska-Tobis & Ewa Deskur-Śmielecka, 2022. "Optimal Assessment of Nutritional Status in Older Subjects with the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease—A Comparison of Three Screening Tools Used in the GLIM Diagnostic Algorithm," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-12, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:3:p:1025-:d:727008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/3/1025/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/3/1025/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:3:p:1025-:d:727008. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.